[PATCH] Destroy ACLs properly, take2

2013-12-10 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 12/01/2013 05:43 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > The attached patch destroys ACLs in the reverse order of creation to > avoid destruction segfaults during reconfiguration. > Done as trunk r13165. Sorry, that was not enough. I somehow missed an obvious use case that the committed fix does not cove

Re: [PATCH] sslcrtvalidator_children concurrency option default value

2013-12-10 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 2013-12-11 10:46, Tsantilas Christos wrote: Hi all, currently we have the following situation for sslcrtvalidator_children configuration option, which is may confusing people: 1) The testing sslcrtvalidator helper supports concurrency 2) The default concurrency if the sslcrtvalidator_childr

[PATCH] sslcrtvalidator_children concurrency option default value

2013-12-10 Thread Tsantilas Christos
Hi all, currently we have the following situation for sslcrtvalidator_children configuration option, which is may confusing people: 1) The testing sslcrtvalidator helper supports concurrency 2) The default concurrency if the sslcrtvalidator_children is not set, is concurrency=0 3) The default s

Re: [RFC] Tokenizer API

2013-12-10 Thread Kinkie
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 12/09/2013 04:13 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> Two requests for additional scope: > >> * can we place this is a separate src/parse/ library please? >> - we have other generic parse code the deserves to all be bundled up >> together instea

Re: [RFC] Tokenizer API

2013-12-10 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 12/09/2013 04:13 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Two requests for additional scope: > * can we place this is a separate src/parse/ library please? > - we have other generic parse code the deserves to all be bundled up > together instead of spread out. Might as well start that collection > process

Re: [PATCH] annotation support for external ACL helpers

2013-12-10 Thread Eliezer Croitoru
Now I just had small hole in time to look. The mentioned logic seems pretty reasonable to me. Eliezer On 23/11/13 13:02, Amos Jeffries wrote: entryData.tag = label; @@ -1603,6 +1605,18 @@ { ACLFilledChecklist*checklist = Filled(static_cast(data)); checklist->extacl_entry

Re: [RFC] Tokenizer API

2013-12-10 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 12/09/2013 10:46 PM, Francesco Chemolli wrote: > My suggestion is to have CharacterSet be a SBuf and > rely on them, at least for now. In any case having them be a SBuf > promotes better interface decoupling and abstraction. CharacterSet is a "set of characters", which is semantically very dif

Re: [RFC] Tokenizer API

2013-12-10 Thread Robert Collins
On 10 December 2013 19:13, Amos Jeffries wrote: > The problem with comparing input strings to a SBuf of characters is that > parsing a input of length N againt charset of size M takes O(N*M) time. Huh? There are linear time parsers with PEGs. Or maybe I don't understand one of your preconditions

Re: [RFC] Tokenizer API

2013-12-10 Thread Kinkie
I'd need to check. To align the others to our IRC discussion: I'm fine with the design Alex and you are suggesting. My only suggestions are to have remaining() return SBuf instead of const SBuf &, and to have a few predefined CharacterSets. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:

Re: [RFC] Tokenizer API

2013-12-10 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 10/12/2013 9:38 p.m., Robert Collins wrote: > On 10 December 2013 19:13, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> The problem with comparing input strings to a SBuf of characters is that >> parsing a input of length N againt charset of size M takes O(N*M) time. > > Huh? There are linear time parsers with PE